The Corrupting Soul of Power: Lessons from Early Islam

Karar Daily columnist and political analyst Mr Yusuf Ziya Cömert explores how the pursuit of power corrupted even the earliest Islamic societies, arguing that idealizing history blinds us to the dangers of political ambition.

Do you desire power? To govern people, manage a nation’s wealth, distribute resources, and stand as the strongest among your peers?

If you hear someone respond with noble intentions—”I want power only to do good, to establish justice, to distribute wealth fairly, and to prevent oppression”—take those words with a grain of salt. Even if spoken with the utmost sincerity, the reality of power usually takes a different turn. Once attained, that individual will likely fail, whether due to newfound greed, the intoxication of authority, or sheer lack of capability.

Or worse, they never intended to keep those promises. They simply had their eyes on the nation’s resources from the start. Is there no third option? A leader who comes to power and remains steadfastly just? If such a person exists, history suggests they are the exception, not the rule.

The Human Fragility of the “Golden Age”

Take, for example, Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph. Before his ascension, he was revered as a pious and exemplary Muslim. Yet, once in power, whether due to his soft nature, administrative shortcomings, or a fatal weakness for his kinsmen, he struggled to maintain a just administration.

His failure did not justify his brutal assassination, but the failure of the community—including towering figures like Ali, Talha, and Zubayr—to find a civilized, “Medinan” solution to the crisis remains a scar on Islamic history. They were unable to find a path that befitted the companions of the Prophet.

Power is a malady, a relentless passion. Once you taste the ability to command, it is nearly impossible to let go. Once you catch its scent, you pursue it at any cost. These are not just historical anecdotes; they are universal human frailties.

Stop Idealizing, Start Understanding

The danger lies in our refusal to see these events as they truly happened. Instead of learning from the past, we attempt to “sanctify” it. We distort historical facts to create an idealized version of history, manufacturing a theology out of political events. In doing so, we do a disservice to both the past and the present.

In his groundbreaking work, A Different History of Islam (İletişim Publications), Prof. Dr. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak offers a necessary departure from this hagiographic approach. He examines the tragic “Battle of the Camel” (Cemel Vakası), which erupted after Caliph Uthman’s death.

The “Triumvirate” and the Battle for the Caliphate

The history reveals uncomfortable political maneuvering. After Uthman was killed, Talha ibn Ubaydullah and Zubayr ibn al-Awwam pledged allegiance to Ali ibn Abi Talib only reluctantly. Why the hesitation? It appears they likely expected the caliphate for themselves, and only conceded when the public mood favored Ali.

At the same time, Aisha, the Prophet’s widow, was moving toward Mecca. Upon hearing that Ali had become “sultan,” she famously declared she would not return to Medina as long as he ruled. Her opposition was rooted in deep-seated personal antipathy, stemming in part from the “Event of the Slander” (Ifk), where Ali had once suggested to the Prophet that divorce was an option.

Prof. Ocak uses the term “Triumvirate” to describe the alliance between Aisha, Talha, and Zubayr. These three, who had previously been critics of Uthman themselves, suddenly championed the cause of “avenging Uthman’s blood” to undermine Ali’s authority. They knew Aisha’s presence would sway the public, leading them to revolt (huruc) against the new Caliph.

The Conclusion: Power Corrupts the Sacred

What we see here is that power can cloud the minds of even the most esteemed companions of the Prophet. It can turn brothers into enemies and lead to the shedding of blood among the faithful.

The takeaway is sobering: Power corrupts. It corrupts the individual, it corrupts the administration, and—most dangerously—it corrupts religion and faith themselves when they are used as tools for political gain.